On 18 Feb 2006 12:43:51 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Unfortunately, the dismissal is not yet final and many of the recent > filings[1] are not (easily?) available online.
-------- Re: Wither Wallace? by: day5done 10/12/05 11:03 am GPL supporters such as Tuxrocks and Groklaw want to avoid publicity concerning Wallace's legal arguments at all costs. Placing these filing under the light of public scrutiny is frightening to them. After all, the GPL has never been tested under judicial scrutiny. Groklaw, Tuxrocks etc. justify this censorship on the ground that they are helping Wallace by pointing out flaws in his case. This as if their legal reasoning is superior to that of a couple of multimillion dollar Indianapolis lawfirms. The real reason they censor is fear. GPL supporters are on their knees praying Wallace is dismissed on "standing". It is perfectly clear to them what is meant by this guideline: "When cross-licensing or pooling arrangements are mechanisms to accomplish naked price fixing or market division, they are subject to challenge under the per se rule. See United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) (price fixing)"; Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (1995) Widespread discusssion of Wallace's complaints in the media could cause the DOJ or FTC to become interested --- a total disaster to price-fixed "free" software. The free software community wants adverse criticism of the GPL buried under a rock --- along with the dotCommunist Manifesto. ------ regards, alexander.
